GOP Wants U.S. to Be a Leader in the “Nuclear Renaissance”

Members of the Senate Republican Conference have adopted the challenge of creating 100 new nuclear plants in the United States in the next 20 years. The main objective of the proposal is to produce more American energy while using less.

“If climate change is the inconvenient problem of the day, then nuclear power is the inconvenient answer,” said U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Senate Republican Conference Chairman.

Alexander said it is “hard to imagine” why the most urgent solution would not be how to produce more nuclear energy in the next 20 years. He said without nuclear power, the U.S. would not have a chance of a clean air economy.

David Blee, executive director of the U.S. Transport Council, discussed the building process of the 100 new nuclear plants. There is currently only one nuclear energy plant under construction in the United States, TVA’s Watts Bar unit 2.

Blee said that nuclear energy is the “most potent clean energy baseload power option, the most powerful stimulator of jobs per megawatt and enjoys record performance reliability, safety, economics and strong public support.”

However, nuclear energy was removed from the stimulus package and there is not a nuclear title in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s recently passed clean energy bill.

“To me this is almost a P.R. situation. I don’t think Americans are aware of the potential associated with nuclear power.” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The "Nuclear Renaissance" may not be the resolution to foreign dependence of oil

"Nuclear energy is not just another way to boil water," said Charles
Ferguson, Phillip D. Reed senior fellow for science and technology at
the Council on Foreign Relations. Ferguson was part of a panel at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace discussion addressing
concerns about the "Nuclear Renaissance" being "glamorized" in the
next administration.

Sharon Squassoni, a senior associate in the Nonproliferation Program,
said, "to reduce dependency on foreign oil, nuclear power is not the
way… Nuclear energy only produces electricity, for now. This
inherently limits its ability to substitute for oil. In the U.S., oil
is only used for about 1.6 percent of electricity generation. When you
look at oil producing nations in the Middle East, a lot more of their
electricity generation comes from oil---it's about in the 30 percent
range."

Squassoni argued that in order to pursue nuclear energy, we'll have to
live with foreign dependence. Squassoni said this is due to "the
location of uranium and the structure of nuclear fuel supply. It's not
just uranium mining and milling. Its conversion, fuel fabrication, and
enrichment, so the structure of the nuclear supply industry is very
much concentrated in a hand full of suppliers. "

Dr. Alan Hanson, Executive Vice President of Technologies and Used
Fuel Management of AREVA NC Inc., believes we need to diversify our
fuel supply between countries around the world. When we build nuclear
plants in foreign countries, Hanson said we should "B.O.O.: Build,
Own, Operate," meaning until we can train their workers adequately and
with environmentally friendly culture, we should maintain operation.
This cooperation would require global interdependence on nuclear
energy.

Hanson said since a large portion of the funding for nuclear energy
comes from financing, our economy might make it hard to accomplish
such measures. He said we won't really know the cost, competitive or
not, until after they're built. This requires a lot of confidence in
the next administration, whose leading candidates have somewhat
similar policies on the matter.

Ferguson explained that while Obama and McCain have rather similar
policies on the need for constructing and renewing more nuclear
reactors in the next couple of decades, McCain has more specific goals
of how many reactors and where. Ferguson said the main factor they
differ on is finding nuclear waste repositories. While McCain supports
the nuclear waste repository in the Yucca Mountain ridge, Obama does
not. Ferguson also said McCain supports a market based decision on
fuel supply, while Obama wants to put funding into diversifying fuel
sources.

Obama energized about energy plan

Sen. Barack Obama's energy plan is "more robust" than Sen. John McCain's plan said Obama Senior Campaign Adviser Kenneth Berlin at a discussion forum. He said that Obama's plan was more aggressive in combatting climate change, and radical change in energy policy was needed because "we are falling behind."

Berlin said that both campaigns have made energy reform a big part of their campaign. According to Berlin, One difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama's goal would be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent while McCain only wants to reduce those same emissions by 60 percent.

There are some myths about Obama's energy policy said Berlin. Obama has "strong support for clean coal technology," which Berlin said has been lied about in this campaign. He also said that Obama does support the development of nuclear power if the United States can deal with the issue of proliferation, and find a clean and secure way to get rid of nuclear waste.

Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear says energy official

Daniel Stout the Director for the Nuclear Fuel Recycling Center with the Department of Energy made the case for nuclear energy in the coming years this morning at the Heritage Foundation. Currently, coal accounts for roughly 50 percent of the energy production in the United States with nuclear energy accounting for far less with 20 percent. Stout said, “If you are to address global climate change you have to account for nuclear energy.”

Stout said that a concern for him and others in the nuclear energy community has been the management of used nuclear fuel. As it stands now there is no national storage facility for nuclear spent fuel. The current proposal at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been viewed as controversial and not a permanent solution to the issue of spent nuclear waste. Stout argued that the nation needs to look more into commercial recycling facilities where there are less environmental repercussions as well as being cost effective. He said this needs to happen by 2010 a high goal considering the tumultuous political environment on the issue of national energy policy.